This might be a shock to many, given her occasionally slurred words and her husband's high-profile DUI arrest in 2022, but former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly is a teetotaler.

In fact, not only does she not drink alcohol, according to Business Insider, she doesn't even drink coffee. (So much for a second career as a writer after she leaves Congress, I can tell her that much.)

In other words, neither of the two most-popular mind-altering substances pass the lips of the 83-year-old Pelosi, now just a standard-issue California Democrat with no "speaker" before her name.

However, people have to constantly be reminded of the fact she's not an imbiber because, well -- have you heard the woman?

Looks like Nana Pelosi had a few Martinis beforehand so she could bring herself to face the camera & slur her way through the press conference.🤪
pic.twitter.com/fEhkHCckQz

— Ziba رویا MAGArepublican (@ZibaLady1) November 6, 2021

And it's not just the slips and slurs during news briefings. That could happen to anyone, provided that anyone was named Nancy Pelosi.

"Drunk tweeting," as those of you who follow more openly bacchanalian media personalities and/or friends on social media know, is a very big thing. And while your 300-follower acquaintance deleting a poorly considered hot take fueled by vodka might not get a lot of attention, public officials can't quite get away with it so easily -- when they can get away with it at all under federal records-keeping laws, that is.

I mention this only because -- well, I'm sure Nancy was celebrating when it was announced Thursday that a grand jury in New York had indicted former President Donald Trump on matters related to nondisclosure agreement payments to former adult entertainer Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

Pelosi was probably having a few scoops of her favorite treat: ice cream. And all that vanilla can go to one's head -- so much so that the speaker of the House up until January of this year apparently forgot about the most basic tenet of American criminal justice, so basic that any person who has watched a few courtroom dramas probably knows it by heart.

"The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law," Pelosi tweeted Thursday evening.

"No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.

"Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right."

The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law.

No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.

Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) March 31, 2023

So, did you catch that one?

Nancy hitting the bottle again?

It’s the prosecution’s burden to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and last I checked — you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. pic.twitter.com/4J623TqY4d

— Lidia Curanaj (@LidiaNews) March 31, 2023

Nobody -- and I mean nobody -- has to prove he or she is innocent under the American system of law.

Given that Nancy was around for the Salem witch trials, I imagine she also remembers another trial of a different century, the O.J. Simpson case. Did O.J. "prove innocence"? Oh, hells to the no. Was he found guilty? Well, of a different crime later, yes, but not of killing his ex-wife and a waiter, despite a mountain of DNA, eyewitness and circumstantial evidence.

And while one might argue other factors were at play in Orenthal James' murder-trial verdict, as the Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute notes, the presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system.

"A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty," it says. "As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted. To do so, proof must be shown for every single element of a crime.

"That being said, a presumption of innocence does not guarantee that a person will remain free until their trial has concluded. In some circumstances, a person can be held in custody.

"The presumption of innocence is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. However, through statutes and court decisions -- such as the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Kentucky -- it has been recognized as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial."

This led many to wonder yet again whether Pelosi really is a teetotaler:

Prove innocence?

How drunk are you right now?

— Ultra Grateful Calvin 🇺🇸🐶🏒 🎶 (@shoveitjack) March 31, 2023

Hey drunk grandma—we don’t prove our innocence in this country.

You should be impeached. Yesterday.

— Scott Stephenson (@scott4wa) March 31, 2023

A right to “prove innocence?” Ummmm … that’s not how it works drunk lady… after spending the last few millennia in DC I would have thought you’d know that. Apparently getting away with insider trading and making millions as a “public servant” (LOL) gave you a false sense of The… https://t.co/nFEq9a4uvp

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) March 31, 2023

Others just wondered where a take this bad could emerge from:

In Constitutional America, it's "innocent until proven guilty." In Democrat fascist America, it's "prove your innocence."

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) March 31, 2023

Are you truly this ignorant? This imbecilic? This misguided? This fascistic? A "trial to prove innocence"? Are you familiar with the concept of presumption of innocence as the DEFAULT a priori position? You are a disgrace. [I'll retweet.]

— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) March 31, 2023

Not sure how they did things in Transylvania in 1106, but in America, no one ever has to prove their innocence. The government has to prove your guilt. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

— Rich Zeoli 🇺🇸 (@Richzeoli) March 31, 2023

He doesn’t have to “prove innocence,” you’re wrong again. The government has to “prove guilt.” What country do you think you serve?

— Buzz Patterson (@BuzzPatterson) March 31, 2023

It's sad why a so-called speaker of the house doesn't even know the law.

It's innocent until PROVEN GUILTY Nancy.

Of course that's when we were a law abiding nation.

It's time to get back to center and away from extremism.

— James Arthur Ray (@JamesARay) March 31, 2023

This might come as a surprise to you, but the prosecution actually bears the burden of proving guilt. The defendant does not bear the burden of proving innocence.

But, your phrasing here is at least honest as to your intentions.

— 𝐄𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚 (@EudaimoniaEsq) March 31, 2023

Yes, the phrasing is as honest as her intentions. Either that or the vanilla ice cream has gone to her head.

Also, keep in mind, Pelosi faces her own questions over insider trading; ought we make her prove her innocence, too? Get some random DA to indict her and let's find out! That's how it works, right? No? Only when it's Donald Trump? Oh, OK. That's because the left doesn't care about legal principles when pursuing conservatives -- especially when that conservative is our former president.

[firefly_poll]

The indictment, lest we forget, hasn't even been unsealed. There are questions of whether Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg even has the constitutional right to pursue the case; under state law, the statute of limitations on the alleged crimes would have expired years ago, and while Bragg has argued the window to charge Trump is still open because he violated federal campaign finance law, the New York prosecutor has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law.

In other words, there's no reason to be spiking the football yet -- especially when Pelosi expects Trump to prove something that bedrock principles of American law don't require him to prove.

Teetotaler though she might be, she's starting to sound like her husband during a roadside sobriety check.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.